Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 306

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains

D. Davies

J. Sims

L. Throness

Hon. D. Donaldson

R. Coleman

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Furstenau

B. D’Eith

J. Yap

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2020

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: In my short statement earlier today about love, I neglected to mention

my love for my good friend Amanda, without whom we would not have the

birthday of my son Dev tomorrow, and for my staff, who do incredible work. I

want to send my love to them, and a happy Valentine’s to you as well, hon.

Speaker, and, of course, the table and all staff here too.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I already wished you a happy Valentine’s. I know the member for

Chilliwack-Kent wanted a special valentine from me. I’ll send one to him. Of

course, every member in this House is deserving of some love.

I see and I choo-choo-choose you, Member. Happy Valentine’s

Day.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued Address in Reply to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. H. Bains: It is, once again — after the break — to get back into my throne

speech, which I’m speaking in favour of. I know before the break, I managed

to draw their attention. At least they listened, and I think that’s one of

the very few times that they actually paid attention to what’s being said

sensibly here in this House. So I will continue.

I talked about, overall, the goals of the government, what we have

achieved and where we want to go. That is listed in the throne speech. But I

want to come back to the comments that were being made a little bit about

forestry and my own ministry.

[1:35 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

It’s no secret that there was a time, when I was actively working in

the forest industry in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, that United States companies

would come and invest in British Columbia — the Weyerhaeusers of the world,

the Rayoniers of the world. They came and invested. They saw a future in the

forestry industry in British Columbia. So what had happened…. Since 2001,

that trend changed.

The member from Nechako knows very well, because he was the minister,

that our B.C. companies…. Never mind the United States companies coming and

investing. They’re not looking at B.C. anymore — for the last 16 years. In

fact, our B.C. companies — Canfor, West Fraser, Interfor, Teal-Jones and a

number of others — are investing in the United States. These are B.C.

companies. That started in the early 2000s.

Now, can I blame everything on the B.C. Liberal government? I think

the tendency is there, but I would say that the reality is that the softwood

lumber dispute, shrinking fibre supply in British Columbia and, yes, the

policies, the so-called Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act that they

brought in…. They delinked the social contract that existed between the

public of this province and these companies. They basically delinked it. Now

there’s no requirement for B.C. companies to process timber here in their

own mills or in British Columbia, to create jobs in British

Columbia.

For that matter, the record amount of the export of raw logs took

place during their time, since 2000. At one time, 7.5 million cubic metres

were shipped out. Not only that; there is a surplus test that they must go

through in order to export timber. The Minister of Forests appointed that

committee, called TEAC, the timber export advisory committee.

You know what? So 112 times that committee decided that certain

applications for export did not meet the access test. What happened? These

companies…. They had friends in government. They supported them. They

donated big money to the B.C. Liberals to put them in power. What happened?

They went to the minister. The minister overruled each and every one of

those application times and allowed those applications to proceed. That

timber got exported. In the meantime, our mills in British Columbia were

left running under capacity or not running at all. That is reality. That’s

what happened under their watch.

Anyway, we’re working hard to make sure that the forest industry is

back on its feet. Once again, it has become the engine of our economy that

will drive our economy. I think people of those regions and those

communities that depend on forestry deserve that from their own government —

that the logs and the raw material that is extracted from their communities,

in their neighbourhoods, is used to create jobs for them in their

communities so that those members can benefit and their communities where

they live benefit.

Coming back to the throne speech again, I would say that every word

delivered Tuesday by Her Honour was the foundation — that our work to date

and our work going forward is focused on making life better for British

Columbians, lifting people up, helping people get ahead, supporting

families, businesses and, yes, workers.

As the Minister of Labour, I’m particularly delighted that this year’s

throne speech offered a distinct lens on actions we have taken to support

the working people in B.C. and on actions ahead. To echo the

Lieutenant-Governor’s words: “British Columbia is a province with limitless

potential.” But for a long time, many people felt stuck. Wages didn’t grow.

Opportunities seemed increasingly out of reach. Despite how hard they

worked, people still felt left behind.

For me, a fundamental example of that is when the economy soared, the

cost of living grew, but the wages for the lowest-paid workers remained

stagnant. How did that happen? They froze the minimum wage for the

lowest-paid workers for ten years.

[1:40 p.m.]

At the same time, they gave tax breaks to the highest-paid workers,

the highest 1 percent of paid workers in British Columbia. Those were their

priorities. We’re fixing that, bringing balance back.

For me, and particularly for those struggling to make ends meet, that

is hard to reconcile when in Canada, one of the most affluent countries in

the world, and in B.C., one of the healthiest economies in Canada, there

still are far too many working poor, far too many choosing rent over

groceries because they couldn’t afford both or couldn’t afford a lunch to

send their kids to school with.

To help lift people out of poverty, we set a fair and predictable path

towards a minimum wage of at least $15.20 an hour by 2021. We will have one

of the highest minimum wages in Canada at that point. While the minimum wage

inches up, we’re also eliminating the lower, discriminatory liquor server

wages in a similar fair, predictable and incremental way by 2021.

Growing out of this work is a further study on how to close the gap

between the minimum wage and the living wage through the Fair Wages

Commission and how to address the status of piece rates paid to those who

harvest certain crops by hand in the agriculture industry.

People felt stuck because they worked hard but couldn’t get ahead;

stuck because they didn’t feel heard, like they were shouting into the wind

while crying out for government support; stuck between a rock and a hard

place, because government had not kept pace with modernized labour laws

amidst a changing work environment.

They knew, for instance, that they had rights under the Employment

Standards Act that weren’t being upheld. Employer obligations with respect

to employment standards were being circumvented because there were too many

barriers placed by the previous government. That is why we introduced new

rules for wage recovery, proactive audit and investigations and eliminated

the self-help kit.

Their rules protecting the integrity of the union certification

process and collective bargaining under the labour relations code were not

balanced or contributing to labour stability. I must say this: that every

worker in this country has a constitutional right to join a union

association of their choice without any interference by their boss. That’s

what we are trying to do, which wasn’t available to them. That fairness

wasn’t there under the previous government.

In addition, we are providing direct support to the Interior forestry

workers whose lives and livelihood are being impacted by an industry in

crisis. We opened five job placement offices to connect displaced forestry

workers with new jobs and training opportunities. Over 350 workers have

accessed our placement offices so far for services.

We also established an early retirement bridging program to help older

workers retire early, creating more job vacancies for others. To date, I’m

proud to say that $5 million has been committed to 132 impacted workers who

have lost their jobs to a permanent closure, and more are filing every day.

The circumstances this industry is facing are difficult, and we want to

support all displaced forestry workers affected by mill closures in the best

way possible.

So while some criticize the throne speech, reflecting — and I’ve heard

this in this room too much — on our past track record and not enough on our

path forward, the throne speech speaks to how far we have come, as a

benchmark, and as a springboard to how much further we still have to

go.

For instance, we have done much to help protect some of the province’s

most vulnerable workers. For example, we introduced new laws requiring

recruiters of foreign workers to be licensed. Building on that, we have

introduced a registry for employers wishing to hire temporary foreign

workers. Another example: we introduced new laws limiting unsafe work for

children and youth and now will bring in regulations that define dangerous

jobs. Another example is longer, more flexible job-protected leaves for

people caring for terminally ill loved ones or a parent caring for a new

child or coping with the death or disappearance of a child.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Lieutenant-Governor, in her speech, reminded us that last year we

introduced a new unpaid job-protected leave for people fleeing domestic or

sexual violence. We are using that as a springboard this session to provide

added support for people experiencing violence, because we heard in large

numbers during an expansive public engagement process that people

experiencing domestic or sexual violence felt that they were stuck between

seeking help and retaining their jobs or self-reliance. We heard that

assurance of a paycheque while getting help is critical. Seeking help

shouldn’t be a choice of your life or livelihood.

It’s not lost on us that a person who has experienced violence may

need to be seen by a physician or therapist, may need to visit a financial

institution to establish a personal bank account and redirect a paycheque

and may need to find safe housing for themselves and their children. These

things can’t be slotted in after work. These supports can’t wait until the

weekend or vacations. These victims need help immediately, but without the

safety net of job-protected leave, getting help can come at a cost of losing

their job or being unable to afford help.

As you heard Tuesday, our government intends to augment the ten-day

unpaid job leave protection with up to five days of paid leave for people

fleeing domestic or sexual violence to help ensure that workers remain safe

and that their jobs and paycheques are safe too.

I know my time has run out. I just want to say that I’m so fortunate

to stand here once again to speak about the direction that the government is

going through — the throne speech. I want to thank the Speaker for the

opportunity for me to make my points known.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the constituents of Peace

River North to provide some feedback on the throne speech this

afternoon.

First, though, I just want to express again how extremely proud I am

to represent my riding of Peace River North, from residents from Taylor,

Fort St. John, Hudson’s Hope and Fort Nelson to the many hamlets and First

Nations communities that are scattered amongst the approximately 170,000

square kilometres.

I’d like to thank my hard-working constituency staff — Kim, Tamara,

Jamie and Julie; and my legislative staff here — Nick, Dion and Stephanie.

As we can all attest to, these folks do such incredible work.

Finally, I’d like to thank my family and my inspiration — my wife,

Erin, and my children, Hana and Noel — that have sacrificed so much, as

everybody in this room, I’m sure, can attest to within their own

families.

I’ve been searching for the right words to describe this throne

speech, just like itself. I’m sure it spent a great deal of time trying to

find a new idea. If I had to choose one word to describe this throne speech,

it would be: “empty.” If I could choose more, they would be: “vague, void,

lacking substance and showing little regard for rural British Columbia and

the average resident of this fine province.” But I’ll use the word

“empty.”

The throne speech from this government sounds, in my opinion, more

like an apology than anything else. What British Columbians have been given

is nothing more than a laundry list of what happened yesterday. We are

witnessing before us today a rudderless government, a government that has no

real idea of what the heck they are doing or where they are

going.

They have made so many promises over the past couple of years — just

to get elected, I might add — and they have hardly delivered on any of

these. From $10-a-day daycare, the $400 renter rebate, the elimination of

Surrey portables…. Of these, they have accomplished zero in nearly three

years.

All of us in this House know, here on the floor and up in the gallery,

that the Speech from the Throne from any government is the cornerstone of

what we do here. It gives us direction. It maps out our vision. It outlines

the vision of what we are going to be doing here. The throne speech maps out

what the government is standing for. I think I’d probably have better

results from Google Maps, myself.

[1:50 p.m.]

Throne speech day was one of the most interesting, though, as well as

one of the most boring days I’ve had in my role as MLA. Outside there was

chaos, and I’ll refrain from that discussion for a little bit later. Inside

this chamber, during the throne speech, was a cricket party. There was zero

energy in the room as we sat and listened to back-patting and

self-congratulations that sounded really no different from last year’s

speech.

I looked at my last year’s throne speech, which unfortunately I didn’t

get a chance to read because government only talked about it for a couple

days. But I looked at the notes in that. And today I’ll be talking about

almost the same stuff that was in last year’s throne speech and the throne

speech the year before that as well. In fact, it kind of reminds me of Bill

Murray’s Groundhog Day , coming over and over and over.

We listened to this government tout the record and claim that all is

well. But, again, the energy in the room was absent — absent. A truly

inspiring throne speech should harness this energy. We would’ve all felt

it.

What is most concerning, though, is the fact that there was no vision

for stimulating the economy. No real talk of job creation, encouraging

connections to new markets. No vision for the future of British Columbia’s

resource sector. Most certainly, no real vision for my riding of Peace River

North.

Many of my constituents — and I can talk for many rural constituents

in B.C. — have never felt more disconnected from this government than they

are feeling right now. From the government attacks on our industries to the

botched handling of the caribou, and most recently, government dealing with

the treaty land entitlement, which has been completely botched in the North

Peace and has caused so much division — a complete failure on the part of

this government.

Where are the solutions to the woes that our caucus has been raising

and rallying against for months? There was no plan to offset the damage of

this government’s mismanagement of key files that they have inflicted over

the past year. There was no plan, which is the problem. Add to this list of

broken election promises, and what I see is a government that is clamouring

for things that they feel proud about, while not laying out a plan that

British Columbians feel confident in.

What is most clear is that this government seems to have no idea how

to make life more affordable, which is really funny because it’s the exact

opposite of what they’ve been saying all along, to “make life more

affordable.” Come to the north and talk to my constituents. They will give

you a very different answer.

In fact, life has never been more expensive for British Columbians

right now — 19 new increased taxes. Everything that this government has seen

as a win, such as the elimination of the MSP, has been severely tainted by

their reality. The employers health tax is crushing small businesses with

this supposed win of eliminating the MSP, which is really just rebranded

into a new tax. That’s part of the issue. Everything that this government

seems to claim as a victory has a dark side that they shy away

from.

Jobs are another matter. That is proving to be a losing battle with

this government. I’m sorry, but they cannot be trusted for a strong economy.

In fact, B.C. has registered, in seven months out of the last eight months,

job losses. That’s not a record to be proud of. This is the reality of

British Columbians this week while they probably embarrassingly listened to

the throne speech.

You can’t paper over the fact that some of these old promises are

wrapped in new words. Again, looking through my throne speech last year and

the year before that, this is just a regurgitation of the same stuff over

and over again. It equals British Columbians not getting ahead. People in

the Peace country, people in rural B.C., are falling behind.

As I mentioned a moment ago, job losses are very concerning. The

actual latest job numbers show another 6,000 full-time jobs gone last

month.

[1:55 p.m.]

That means that over the past eight months, we’ve lost a total of

32,800 jobs. How is that a sustainable model? Prices and taxes are going up.

Jobs are going down. Everybody in the province loses. No plans for mining.

No plans for forestry. No vision for the oil and gas sector, for the service

economy. No ideas for economic development of any kind.

Shocking. Scary for my riding and other rural ridings across the

province to see something that we have embraced, something that has

sustained our families and, indeed, sustained this province starting to go

down the toilet. There are no ideas for growing the sectors that build our

communities and generate our shared opportunities — just burdensome taxes,

layers of red tape and limited foresight.

I wish I could be more positive, but I cannot find anything positive

in this throne speech. Where are the plans to open new global markets? Oh,

wait, they’re closing our trade offices, I understand. I guess that one’s

not a priority. The vision for creating opportunities? Well, not in this

throne speech. The ideas to spark new investment in our province, to bring

capital money to our province, to bring job creation? Not in this throne

speech.

Competitiveness. We are now dead last on the continent when it comes

to competitiveness. I’ve spoken with many folks in the resource sector, and

I represent a lot of resource companies — forestry, mining. We have oil and

gas, agriculture all up in Peace River North. I’ve had these conversations

with many people. Farming, for crying out loud. We’ve even lost our

competitive edge in farming. This government has completely killed our

competitive edge, and there’s nothing in this throne speech that points to

that returning anytime soon.

You know, it’s lovely. Recently they had…. Well, they called it a

cabinet shuffle. I’m not too sure if I would call it a cabinet shuffle. They

swapped a couple of ministers out, renamed a ministry to the Minister of

Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness. I actually laughed when I

read that. I found it quite funny, because just adding the word

“competitiveness” does not make British Columbia competitive. We need

action. We need the government to do something to get us back on track and

get our resources to market. We’re not seeing our government do this, and we

certainly are not seeing this in the throne speech. I hope that we do see

something in the budget next week.

You know, there’s more to ticketing scalpers and reducing our cell

phone bills. But people need jobs. People need to provide for their

families. They need to provide for themselves. I don’t think that is too

much to ask for.

Forestry communities are still in complete destitute…. Yet our

hands-off Premier has pretty much general disregard for this, it seems. It’s

a sector that is in crisis. I’ve used the word multiple times. It is in

crisis. Layoffs, shutdowns announced consistently throughout the NDP’s term

in government. There are now more than 100 mill curtailments — ten of them

indefinitely or permanently closed down, including one mill in my community,

the OSB plant. It’s a horrific statistic, if this continues, and it’s going

to continue to haunt these communities until something is done. Yet most of

what we seem to have heard from this government is mocking this.

Our Premier, the Premier of the largest softwood producer in the

country, could not be bothered to join other Premiers from Canada when they

visited Washington to try and fight for a better deal for their provinces.

Where was our Premier to fight for a better softwood deal? I used the

crickets analogy earlier on. There it is again — the Forest Minister

claiming that it’s not a crisis. The parliamentary secretary saying, “Oh,

there are too many mills anyways,” right here in this House. It’s an abysmal

response.

[2:00 p.m.]

Attempts to alleviate this pressure have not fared that much better.

The petty handout packages that we’ve seen don’t provide real support. These

are not solutions to the problem. We proposed a five-point action plan that

would’ve provided tax relief and assistance, but the NDP chose to ignore

this. In fact, one of my colleagues was talking about this, and the Premier

referred to her constituents as “spoiled children” in this House —

horrible.

To add to this fact, the government then pilfered the rural dividend

fund, which is already a lifeline for many rural communities across the

province to help them get ahead. Again, no real regard for rural British

Columbia.

Back to the land of unaffordability, housing costs in much of the

Lower Mainland are still beyond comprehension. Vancouver has the second

least affordable housing in the world, with the average rent for a

two-bedroom apartment in Vancouver being just over $2,000. Where’s the

promised $400 annual renters rebate? A false election promise vaporized.

Dealing with gas prices that continue to soar, and a bogus review with

parameters that would never have dealt with the real problem or looked for

the real cause. That’s taxation. We know that.

Let’s look at a few things. Education. Well, let me start, first of

all, by thanking all of our teachers for their incredible work. Education

does lay the foundation for our society and provides our young graduates

with the skills to communicate, cooperate, build an economy and just be

successful in life. B.C.’s education system is consistently ranked as one of

the best in the world, but we can always do better.

I’m particularly impressed with the fact of the Indigenous high school

graduation rate that has reached 70 percent in B.C., but work still remains

to be done to close that gap. Indigenous and non-Indigenous graduates — we

need to ensure that our education system benefits everybody. Teachers do

deserve the most credit for this improvement. Without their dedication to

achieving better outcomes for students, regardless of their background, we

would not have the high success rates that we see today. As a teacher

myself, I saw so many incredible teachers that make an unbelievable

difference in many of our students’ lives.

I’d be remiss, though, if I also didn’t recognize our school districts

— the great deal of work that they do to make sure that our students have

what they need to attain these goals. They have a very challenging job

themselves.

As critic for Education, it is also my responsibility to hold the

government accountable to their promises, whether that’s child care spaces,

hospitals or portables. The NDP have made grand, grand election promises and

have not delivered on any of them — vaporized.

Unfortunately, the government continues to fail Surrey parents and

students who were promised the elimination of portables. In fact, at the

start of the school year, there were 361 portables in the school district of

Surrey alone. That’s a 32 percent increase from the time that they promised

to eliminate the portables in just four years. We knew all along that that

promise was unattainable. Again, a false election promise was

made.

B.C. families are currently facing increased uncertainty about their

futures, as this government has yet to reach a deal with B.C. teachers. Only

sporadic meetings have taken place since the summer of 2019. Each month

without meaningful contract talks brings B.C. students closer to the

prospect of another teacher job action. We do need the minister to take

action sooner than later to relieve the mounting anxiety among parents,

teachers and, of course, our students.

[2:05 p.m.]

In talking with school districts around the province, we are still

critically short of teachers. The minister, though, seems to downplay this

often and counts teachers that are teaching on a letter of permission. This

is not how we solve the teacher shortage. This isn’t the fix. We need a real

plan to train, recruit and retain teachers. I know the government knows

this, but we need to see something in the throne speech, and we need to see

something in the budget next week that will directly deal with this. This is

an issue. This isn’t just a rural issue, but it’s an issue across the

province.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t include the shortage of French

immersion teachers. We’ll be closely watching the budget next week to make

sure that there is something in there to deal with this.

Housing. Some prices are going back up after a very modest decline,

but prices still aren’t remotely affordable. Housing starts are down 40

percent in B.C. The NDP has only built 2,400 new affordable housing units

versus the election promise of 114,000. Vaporized — another election promise

gone. At this rate — and we’ve heard this number used here before — it would

take the NDP government over 100 years to fulfil this promise to build

114,000 new housing units.

Nothing, though, there. Nothing talked about in the throne speech to

deal with the supply issue. There’s nothing to encourage building. Instead,

NDP taxes, red tape, yadda, yadda, yadda, are causing project after project

to be cancelled. This is not dealing with the housing crisis.

Our caucus staff, in their diligent work, have routinely demonstrated

that the figures shared by this government tend to look good but hide the

reality. Reannouncements of previously announced projects seem to be a new

pastime of this government.

The $10-a-day child care election promise seems to be a slow-burning

failure, as only 2,055 child care spaces have been created, versus the

election promise of 24,000. Vaporized. I don’t know, but you can maybe see a

trend here about election promises and the reality that we’re seeing here

today, almost three years after the fact. And I’m only touching on a few

things. I’m sure the rest of my colleagues, as we talk about the throne

speech, will come up with many of their own examples as well.

Promised numbers, photo ops that seem empty — when you peek your head

behind the curtain, that’s where we see the reality. This is not making

things affordable for British Columbians. Quite the opposite.

As I move to conclude my remarks, what is clear is that this

government is the same old NDP of the past, addicted to taxes with no idea

on how to deliver a vision for a better future for everyone that lives in

British Columbia. I hear groans across the way.

The reality, and we can see it over and over, is the government

failing to deliver what British Columbians need. It’s clear that the NDP

have no real vision — no real vision for making life better for people, for

helping families get ahead and for making sure that we, as a province, are

ready to move forward together.

[2:10 p.m.]

That’s what my constituents in Peace River North want. They want an

opportunity. They want the opportunity to provide for their families. We

need this government to give this opportunity for everyone in British

Columbia.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak on a throne speech that

encapsulates the values and our commitments that we made to the public when

we ran for office — values and commitments that we are delivering

on.

Let me remind my colleague across the way that our province still has,

and we’re very proud of this, a triple-A credit rating. It has the best

economic growth forecasts across the country. It has the lowest unemployment

rate.

What we’re so proud of is the fact that we have been able to address

some of the major concerns of British Columbians. One of them was

affordability. You know what this government was able to deliver? The

largest tax break British Columbians have known since 1948 — the largest tax

break. That is the elimination of the MSP. That, for the very first time,

puts British Columbians on par with the rest of the country, because nobody

else in Canada was paying medical service premiums. Only British Columbia

was.

Now, as my colleagues across the way say, yes, there is a health tax,

as it exists in other provinces as well. A very small percentage of our

businesses actually pay that health tax. But you know, that is the cost of

doing business.

We are also trying to, I would say, fix a dumpster fire left to us by

the previous government. You’ve seen that there are major reforms coming to

ICBC, and we’re very proud of that. Some of those reforms have already taken

place, but others were hinted at. I know that when British Columbians see

those, they will see the benefit to their pocketbook, and they will see that

it is good for them. Here I’m just trying to give you an overview, and then

I’ll get into things in more detail.

Unfair bridge tolls. It always irked me — maybe because I have family

that lives south of Fraser, and I live south of Fraser, and I have family

that lives north of Fraser as well — that there were only two bridges that

had tolls on them. They both impacted people south of Fraser the

most.

There were other bridges built at that time, notably one in Kelowna

that — surprise, surprise — had no toll on it. But for people south of

Fraser, who have been starved of investments in public transit and

infrastructure, they had to pay the tolls. I’m so proud of the fact that we

eliminated those tolls. That saved families about $1,500 per year. I’m

hearing from many families in my constituency office that the savings are

far greater for many who have kids going to school or who happen to have to

travel across those bridges.

I’m also pleased to announce, as the hard-working Minister of Labour

talked about earlier, that the minimum wage is also being addressed. Unlike

the previous government that really condoned child labour and wages that

were just absolutely outrageous, we have implemented, in a graduated way, a

minimum wage to make sure that people who do a full day’s work have the

right to go home and have some stability. Not enough, but more to be

done.

When it comes to the housing crisis, I was surprised to hear my friend

across the way saying that we haven’t done enough. I agree with him. We need

to do a lot more, but we have done far, far more than they did in 16

years.

[2:15 p.m.]

When you look at the money laundering that was allowed to explode

during the previous government’s reign, so to speak, and how it impacted our

housing market…. When I saw families, including my own family members and

many of my constituents, seeing buying a house get out of their reach…. They

just could not see how a house within a year could go up by $400,000, by

$350,000. You know, those were the amounts that people thought were

outrageous for a house price, never mind the way they went up.

So yes, we’re very proud of the steps we’ve taken so far. They seem to

be working. I’m glad my colleague acknowledged that — that there has been

some moderation.

We are encouraging more development — more rental development, more

strata buildings, high density. That’s what governments do. You know what?

When I looked at the permits that are being issued by cities, they haven’t

gone down, not in the Lower Mainland. They have actually gone up. The

building trade is doing well. More houses will be built. That is all

good.

Now, let’s talk about child care a little bit. This is a topic that’s

close and dear to my heart. I keep hearing my colleague across the way

saying: “You know, this government hasn’t done anything. It’s been about

photo ops.” I want to remind them. That’s their specialty. When they were in

government, it was to do photo ops.

There were lots done in the city of Surrey. Many, many were done.

“We’re going to build a hospital here. We’re going to build a hospital

here.” “Oh, yes, this is where we’re going to build a hospital.” And then —

surprise, surprise — not even a concept plan, not even a business plan,

nothing in the books for a hospital for Surrey.

So I know they used the photo ops, and I know they think that

everything can happen just like that. But it does take time to build, and

we’re doing that. That’s why this throne speech reflects the continuation of

the good work we’ve been doing and building on that foundation so that if we

had child care spaces that we’ve developed over the last three years, what

we’re going to be focusing on the next year is to develop more.

This is where I want to talk about Surrey a little bit. All of us

always want to know: “Okay. So what’s happening in my own riding?” I think

this is when it comes home to you, when your own constituents come and tell

you what a difference the child care is making. I really want to thank both

Minister Conroy and Minister of State Chen for the amazing work they have

done in this area.

Let me tell you, in Surrey-Panorama alone, $8,155,749 has been spent

on child care. That’s right in Surrey-Panorama. Just to let you know, the

parents in Surrey-Panorama alone have benefitted in close to $6 million

being returned to them in the way of reduced fees and benefits. That is good

news, because that is money that immediately goes back into the pockets of

families that live there. So that is a good thing. When it comes to child

care and when it comes to housing, once again, I’m very proud of the work

that has been done in Surrey.

As always, education. I cannot stand up here and talk about

education…. I do want to thank the Minister of Education, who is here — I’m

not supposed to say that — for the amazing tenacity he has shown in building

new schools in Surrey. I want to say to him, a big, big thank-you. Over

7,500 students were in portables when we became government, and we made a

commitment that we would be building schools. Now Surrey has experienced

growth.

[2:20 p.m.]

Let me just read out a list of some of the new schools that have just

gone up in Surrey or are in the process: Salish Secondary School; Woodward

Hill elementary school with an addition; Panorama Park in my riding, an

elementary school with an addition; Pacific Heights Elementary School,

addition; Coyote Creek Elementary with an addition; Frost Road Elementary;

Sullivan Elementary with an addition; Douglas area elementary, new school;

Edgewood Drive elementary, new school; Grandview Heights secondary, new

school; Maddaugh elementary, new school; Regent Road Elementary, new school;

Sullivan Heights Secondary, a new addition.

That doesn’t even count in the properties that have been bought, for

the first time in a very long time, for future growth so that we are not

always catching up. We are planning for the future. Not only that, but the

seismic upgrades that have gone on.

At this stage, I do want to take a moment to say a very special

thank-you to the B.C. Teachers Federation, because the B.C. Teachers

Federation did something that, to me, is iconic. When they lost major

protections for students’ learning conditions from their collective

agreements, they took that to the Supreme Court of Canada. And when they

took that to the Supreme Court of Canada, they won. That has put close to

4,000 additional teachers in the classrooms, providing care for students who

need it.

I want to say that we are also pleased at the latest round — the

announcement that was made on the funding formula — that for the first time

there is going to be money allocated to address the special needs of those

students who are living in care and who are in the public care system. So

much is happening in this area, and I know that there is a lot more work to

be done.

I am not going to make a comment on collective bargaining, because

that happens in a different arena, but I can tell you that when I see the

commitment that this minister has, this Premier has and this government has

for public education, I am always, always impressed.

Now let me talk about health care a little bit. Being from Surrey,

once again, that is so, so important for us, because we did feel like the

neglected child. For a fast-growing city like Surrey, we had one hospital,

one emergency room that was jam-packed. Unfortunately, I’ve had to spend

many a night in that emergency room with my aging mom. Sometimes you were in

the corridor for three days and three nights before any other space could be

found for you.

I’m very, very pleased — after, I would say, photo-op promises by the

previous government — that our government has announced that a hospital will

be built. A concept plan has been completed, and now the business plan is in

process. Because the previous property had been sold by the outgoing

government, a piece of property has been bought. We know where the hospital

is going to be, and we cannot wait for that hospital to start being

built.

Also in Surrey, we invested $4.6 million to open B.C.’s first Mental

Health and Substance Use Urgent Care Response Centre at the hospital and

invested $3.1 million for an urgent primary care centre in Surrey on top of

that, in November last year, which serves 5,000 patients. In partnership

with the First Nations Health Authority, we have also opened up Fraser

Health’s first Indigenous Primary Health and Wellness Home in Surrey — all

very, very critical.

We’ve invested $8 million to expand the acute care unit chemotherapy

area of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre in Surrey. We’ve increased hip and

knee replacement surgeries by 23 percent. We’ve increased MRI exams, and we

have purchased a private MRI clinic in Surrey, which has added a capacity of

5,000 additional MRI scans per year. We’ve invested another $5.5 million to

open a new 3T MRI suite at the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care

Centre.

Age-friendly grants are being awarded to seniors to help them with

their mobility. We’ve also expanded the Peace Arch Hospital, and we’ve

increased staffing levels in seniors long-term care. As you can see, in

Surrey, we are feeling that a lot has been happening.

I want to talk a little bit about jobs right now, because I heard a

lot about that from my colleague across the way earlier. I am very proud of

the work we’ve done in this area to grow a diverse economy — a sustainable

economy that keeps in mind our duty to look after Mother Earth but at the

same time to make sure we use our resources wisely and also that we develop

those resources.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’m proud to say that B.C. — Vancouver — is a magnet for the tech

sector. We have organizations like Microsoft coming here now with their

cybersecurity centre and many other tech companies that are coming and

bringing with them well-paying jobs — not just into the Lower Mainland but

when you go to Rossland, to Trail, to Nelson, to Campbell River. You can go

to many, and wherever you go, the tech industry is alive. They have become

aware that with our investments in fibre optics, we are actually increasing

and opening opportunities and doors for the tech sector to absolutely expand

here, and it is growing.

The other thing is that we’re a government that doesn’t just think

about the top 1 percent. We’re a government that does long-term planning.

We’ve often made ten-year announcements, and we are a government that is

investing in B.C. We are investing in infrastructure, in roads, in bridges —

a new Pattullo Bridge for Surrey. Once again, a $1.37 billion investment,

creating thousands of local jobs.

Planning for the Massey Tunnel or bridge is well underway. We’re very,

very pleased at the progress that is making, because for the first time, you

have a unanimous agreement from the mayors as to the kind of crossing they

would like to see there.

I see all the work that is being done on the roads and on the

highways. Schools are being built. Hospitals are being built. Bridges are

being built. Child care centres are being built. When all this is happening,

that means there are jobs.

We have made a determined effort, through the efforts of our

hard-working minister for post-secondary and skill development, that we are

investing in British Columbians. We are investing to make sure that we give

the training and develop the red seal skills that are needed so that we have

a strong and diverse workforce, so much so that we have even invested in

people who are 55-plus — I went to do the announcement for that — who are

going through career transitions because there are many things happening in

the career industry. Things are changing. So we’re assisting with career

transitions as well.

When I look at Surrey, just when we look at the prioritizing of local

jobs, 1,200 to 1,400 local people will be employed as the Pattullo Bridge

gets built. That is quite an economic boost to south of the Fraser and to

the Lower Mainland and attracts lots of jobs. On top of that, just in the

Surrey area alone, we have awarded $21 million in contracts to Surrey-based

companies to complete road projects in communities. That is

investing.

Good governance is about making sure that people have jobs. Good

governance is about making sure that people have services. Good governance

is about making sure that you invest in infrastructure, which we do. I

think…. I know I’m very proud of the work that this government is doing to

make sure that we are investing in our economy. We’re growing our economy,

growing decent-paying jobs. How are we doing it? We are doing it by

investing in child care. We are doing it by investing in our kids through

building schools. We are doing it through building hospitals. We are going

to carry on doing those things.

I just do want to acknowledge at this time, talking about children, my

two wonderful kids, Kiran and Michael Sims, who have been there for me

constantly as I came on this journey of life in the political arena and who

are my inspiration. On the days that some of the work looks challenging, as

it did on Tuesday, they phone you up, and they lift you up.

[2:30 p.m.]

I also want to say how much I love my grandchildren, of course, three

of them, and now my great-granddaughter, and how proud I am to be one of the

living five women who are first-borns in my family. It is such a

delight.

I would be remiss if today I did not thank the hard-working staff I

have here in the Legislature and also in my own riding, who, when I’m not

there, make sure that they are serving the constituents in a way that meets

their needs.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The work that we have done in the area of mental health and addressing

the opioid crisis — which every one of us in this room agrees upon, by the

way; there is no disagreement there — is work that desperately needs to be

done. Once again, our hard-working minister has done an amazing job of

taking a look at this systematically and making decisions that are not

always gut-driven, but driven by data and by evidence to make sure that we

have the kind of policies that get us where we want to go.

I have heard some criticism that this throne speech doesn’t have too

much new in it. I would say that it has a lot of new stuff in it. But also,

a throne speech is about the ongoing work, as well. When we took on the

gargantuan tasks of trying to repair the 16-year deficit in child care, in

housing, in health care and many other aspects, we knew that we were taking

on a long-term commitment. Those are the commitments we’ve made.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you how much longer I

have?

Deputy Speaker: Nine minutes.

J. Sims: Nine minutes? Oh, thank you so much.

So I do want to take a moment.

Interjections.

J. Sims: Oh, I do.

I do want to, at this time, also acknowledge the work that has been

done by our Minister of Agriculture. She took on a very challenging task of

addressing saving our prime farmland for our food security. She came through

with some legislation, which I know was controversial. But she made a

commitment to the people at the time: that she was listening, and that for

farmers, for people who were actually farming, there were opportunities to

build larger homes to accommodate their families.

But she also was very, very firm that our farmland is there for us to

grow our food. It is there for our children and for our children’s children.

Once we lose our farmland, reclaiming it is not that easy. It’s not like

just going in there and saying: “Oh, today we’re going to farm on

it.”

I’m really proud of the minister. She went into a consultation process

and listened, and when she came out with the recent regulations, those

regulations reflected what she had heard through her

consultations.

The previous legislation is still in place and is working, but really,

she made accommodations for a family that may want to have elderly parents

living with them — maybe not in the house, but in a separate unit. She’s

made accommodations for a family that may have a service care provider like

a nanny or long-term care, who they may not want to have living in the house

but on site. Those accommodations have been made.

What really excites me is when I see this minister travel around the

province, and she is, like the Eveready bunny, everywhere. She goes around,

and she gets so excited about not only the food we grow but the use of it —

you know, eating local food.

It’s under her watch and the watch of Minister Dix that we have seen

two health authorities now — I think three, maybe — that are going to be

using local food in the hospitals. That is a big, big step.

I spent a lot of time, as I said previously, both in the emergency

room and in the hospital. And really, some of the food I saw there…. I’m

glad that we are introducing more local food that is healthy and all of

those things.

[2:35 p.m.]

I have a lot of chance to talk about all of the amazing things we are

doing in Surrey, but I didn’t really get a chance to say that not only is

Surrey getting a new hospital, but Burnaby is getting one. Vancouver is

getting one. I see hospitals being announced in the north and in the

Interior, irrespective of who that MLA represents — because they represent

their constituents — or which party they are from.

I have been so proud of the work done by the Health Minister as he has

grown urgent care centres, primary care centres and hospitals in every

corner of this province. That says a lot. So it isn’t just…. When I look at

some of the schools that have opened up in Surrey, they have opened up where

many of the members who are sitting across the road from me…. We are very,

very delighted about that.

In a similar way, as we all know, the Minister of Environment has been

busy working. As we have said, we have to look for that balance. I hear

about that from my children and grandchildren all the time — about the need

for us to be cognizant about the impact of global warming and what we’re

doing to Mother Planet and that we must leave something behind for them. So

I’m very, very proud of the work we’ve done around electrification, around

promoting electric cars and looking at alternate energies, but also, through

retrofits, making sure that we can meet our goals.

The investments we’re attracting…. You would think, from across the

way, that we were not attracting investment. When I look at the companies

that are moving in here…. I just mentioned Microsoft, and Amazon just moved

in. There are others who are looking to come here. I also have to say that

it took an NDP government and an NDP premier to sign on the LNG and to bring

that to fruition. I know work was done on that by the previous government as

well, but at the end of the day, it’s who can bring the deal home. I’m very,

very proud of the work that was done by the Premier and the minister to make

sure that was addressed.

In the light of everything that’s going on, I do want to say I am very

proud of the work we have done in the area of truth and reconciliation —

very, very proud of our work. I have no regrets. I’m very proud of the way

my Premier has responded and reacted to what is going on. Not one of us in

this House endorses any kind of violence. But we also know that we’re

privileged to live in a country where we do have the right to peaceful

protest. Those protests are going on right now, but despite that, we cannot

let that be a distraction from the ongoing work, which, as the Premier often

says, is the hard, hard work of truth and reconciliation.

I want to remind each and every one of us that we all committed to

that. We all voted for that. So let us all, each and every one of us, do our

part in lifting the move towards truth and reconciliation in a meaningful

way. I knew when we were voting on it and discussing it — it was very

emotional in this House — that that was the beginning. The hard work was

ahead. I think Tuesday showed us that the hard work is ahead, and we have a

lot of work to do in that area.

But let me end now by saying that I couldn’t be prouder of a

government that has a throne speech that is not about photo ops and that is

actually about deliverables and about addressing the serious issue of child

care, which is both an economic investment as well as good for children and

families.

It is about addressing the housing crisis that is real in a meaningful

way, a tough road ahead for us; addressing the infrastructure that we need

for hospitals, schools, child care centres, roads and highways; making sure

that we have a clean B.C. — well, we do know that we have a very

forward-looking plan, maybe cutting edge in the country; making sure that we

do the work on truth and reconciliation; making sure we’re looking after our

resources and using them in a way that will benefit generations to come, but

at the same time, being cognizant of the impact on Mother Earth; and making

sure that we have respectful relationships with people who share this

beautiful province with us.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s not always easy, nor will it be, but I think we, collectively,

are up to the work. I am so, so happy that this throne speech puts people

first and is building on the foundation that was laid in the first throne

speech. You cannot undo 16 years in one or two years. This is ongoing work,

and we’re committed to it.

L. Throness: It gives me real pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne on

behalf of my constituents today. I want to begin by thanking my

constituents. It is a great privilege to serve in this place. I always enter

this chamber with a sense of awe and thankfulness that I’m able to work hard

on their behalf.

I also want to thank my staff. I think of Wendy King, my legislative

assistant here in Victoria, who does a terrific job. Coletta Holmes; Sheila

Denis; and Kathy Miki — they are foundational to my work. They do a really

great job with my constituents. They’re great and capable individuals, and I

appreciate them very much.

A couple of weeks ago, we had an incredible storm throughout my

riding. There were several places where there were floods, and roads were

washed out in Columbia Valley. There was a flood in Hemlock Valley. So 1.5

kilometres of road were washed away, and 500 people were trapped up in the

Sasquatch Mountain Resort.

Here, I want to thank Brian Murphy. He is president of the Hemlock

Valley residents association. Also Shelby Lim and the other staff of

Sasquatch Mountain Resort who made sure that the community was pulled

together and everyone was fed and housed and safe.

I want to thank Emil Anderson Maintenance, who really deserve a

shout-out for repairing that road and bringing it back to passable condition

within 2½ or three days, which is really quite an engineering feat. What we

really need and I will continue to press for is a proper refit of that road.

It’s not completely paved, and it’s in poor condition because it’s just an

old logging road. It needs rebuilding, and I want to call on the government

once again to do that.

Finally, Rockwell Drive, in the district of Kent just north of

Harrison Hot Springs, was flooded as well. I went up there, and it was an

enormous amount of damage that was done in a very short time. But again,

Emil Anderson Maintenance is working hard to repair it within a few days. I

met with constituents there, and they were coping very well.

It was kind of an historic weekend. As disasters go, we got off

lightly. No one was hurt. We’re grateful that we’re evacuating people,

fixing things and that people are taken care of. We are a resilient

community out in Chilliwack-Kent, and things are going to be

okay.

Now, I want to speak to the throne speech. One thing that I want to

point out — a phrase in the throne speech that we’re interested in, the

phrase that British Columbians can look forward to more options like

“commuter rail out to the Fraser Valley.” Well, I mean, that would be great.

We’re looking for a widening in the No. 1 out to Whatcom Road at least, and

if that could be done, we’d be happy for the meantime. I guess my cynical

nature would say: “In what decade might commuter rail come to the Fraser

Valley?” But we’re going to give the government the benefit of the doubt for

today, and we’re going to be seeking more details on that in short

order.

Now, I must say that I was disappointed with the Speech from the

Throne and what it said about children and families. I looked at it through

the lens of children and families because of my role as critic in that area.

Mostly, the throne speech had a lot of partisan talk in it, more than a

usual throne speech does, and a regurgitation of promises from one or two

budgets ago. This is particularly true of about child care, with one

exception. I want to point this out, because the throne speech did signal an

important and very significant change in direction in the government’s child

care program. In fact, I regard it as an about-face, a reversal, a full-on

back-pedal, even an astonishing turnaround.

I want to set the stage for those remarks by quoting from the 2017

election campaign of the NDP, which said this when they promised universal

health care, and I quote right from their platform: “The $10-a-day plan will

build a child care system that provides safe care for every child whose

family wants or needs it.”

Here’s what they said in their first budget of 2018 in a document

called — and I brought it with me — The Path to Universal Child

Care . Here’s what it says on page 6 of The Path to Universal

Child Care : “The province’s plan for early care and learning is to

move…towards universal child care that is affordable and available for any

family that wants or needs it.” That’s quite telling.

[2:45 p.m.]

In the Canada–B.C. early learning and child care agreement, which is a

federal-provincial document — it’s a legal document signed by ministers —

the NDP government echoed this exact same language on child care. Here’s

what it said: “British Columbia committed to implementing a ten-year

universal child care plan that provides affordable, accessible and

high-quality care and early learning to every child whose family wants or

needs it.”

They committed to this, to the federal government. But yesterday in

the throne speech, they backed away from it. They reversed course. They

abandoned the concept of universal child care and broke a key election

promise when they said this. I’ll quote from the throne speech. “This

government brought forward…a universal child care plan, to provide

affordable, quality care to every family that needs it.” Not “needs or

wants” — every family that “needs” it. It’s no longer about wanting; it’s

only about need. And if it’s only about need, it’s no longer universal. Gone

is the idea that any family that wants subsidized child care will be able to

get subsidized child care.

It’s similar to health care. If you want health care, you don’t get

it. You only get it if it’s medically necessary. Social assistance,

disability, autism funding — all of these programs are need-based programs,

and now child care is a need-based program too. Those programs are not

universal. You can’t get health care if you want it; you can only get it if

you need it. The government has thus backed away from one of its most

important campaign promises.

Many thousands of families voted for the government because of its

promise of universal care for every family that wanted or needed it. It even

made that commitment in writing to the federal government, in order to get

millions of dollars for child care, and now the NDP have broken faith with

all of them — the federal government, parents, voters. Maybe they thought no

one would notice, but we noticed here in the opposition, and parents will

notice too.

It’s not universal anymore. I guess they found out that it will cost

too much. But there are ramifications to this new direction in the throne

speech. The first, for me, is to call upon the government to immediately

stop giving fee reduction initiative subsidies to millionaires, because

right now fee reductions are universal for everyone, whether they need them

or not.

In this way, the NDP are right now actually giving to the rich and

taking from the poor, because those subsidies are not available to those who

are of lower income. This needs to stop. If it’s now on the basis of need

and they don’t need it, they shouldn’t get it. I will look forward to this

being in the budget next week.

But I suspect that they knew all of this going in. They knew when they

drafted their plan, when they drafted their 2018 budget and their platform

that they would not be able to afford child care for everyone who wants or

needs it, and now they’ve just slipped it in under the noses of the

public.

I want to continue by talking about the B.C. child opportunity

benefit, which was a feature — the feature, really — in the last budget, in

2019. The throne speech just really reannounced it. It talks about giving

$380 million every year to families with children under the age of 18. We

support more benefits to families. That’s not a problem with us. But with

the NDP, you always have to look at the fine print.

What’s in the fine print? The government says that a family with one

child will get $1,600 a year. Add $1,000 a year to that for the second

child, and add to that $800 a year for a third and subsequent child. So a

three-child family can expect $3,400 a year. It works out to roughly $100 a

month per child, or a little less. But you have to read the fine print. This

is the maximum that can be given.

At a family income of just $25,000, the amount starts to be clawed

back as the family earns more, and at just $55,000 in family earnings,

there’s only half the benefit left. At an income of $80,000, it starts to

fall again, disappearing at a family income of $120,000. But what’s the

average family income? The average family income in B.C. is $72,000, which

means that only a very few B.C. families will get the maximum, and most will

get about half, or 50 bucks a month per child, $1,700 a year for a family

with three kids.

I mean, it’s nice. We support that. It’s not a bad thing. But let’s

realize that in practice, it will not be nearly as generous as what it’s

billed to be. Families should not go and add new rooms to their house or

take on other expenditures in anticipation of this smaller amount of

money.

[2:50 p.m.]

Now, I want to go back in child care to the budget of 2018 and recall

some of the enormous promises the government made for the three-year period.

We are now two years into that three-year period, and I want to evaluate a

little bit of where we are, according to the promises that they

made.

They were going to spend $1.3 billion over three years on child care.

They were going to create 24,000 new incremental spaces and supply enough

early childhood educators to staff them. They would be a third of the way to

our $10-a-day care for every family that needs or wants it. There would be

fee reductions for 50,000 families. The affordable child care benefit was

going to benefit 86,000 families at the end of that three-year period. And

27,000 families making under $45,000 a year would pay little or nothing for

licensed care.

Well, how are the NDP doing? Have they lived up to their grandiose

promises? Allow me to address these issues in turn. I want to begin by

talking about $10-a-day care, which was arguably the centrepiece of the NDP

campaign in 2017.

The first point is that the NDP put together a pilot project, and they

used all federal money to fund that pilot project through the B.C.-Canada

early learning and child care agreement. A total of $156 million over three

years but not a penny of provincial money was committed to $10-a-day care.

And to date, not a penny has been spent by the government on $10-a-day care.

It’s all federal money.

Nor did they create a single new space in this pilot project. They

merely converted 2,500 existing spaces in 53 lucky centres into $10-a-day

spaces. Now, this pilot program is supposed to end on March 31, to be

followed by an evaluation by Malatest that was supposed to be done at the

end of June. But we heard lately that the federal government has renewed the

funding anyway, and the pilot project will continue for another year after

March 31.

Now, I really don’t think that the government is particularly

concerned about the evaluation, whether it’s good or bad, but it should care

because the evaluation contract signed by the government is very costly:

$2.9 million to evaluate 53 centres, including $462,000 in expenses like

travel, meals, accommodation — oh, and gratuities provided to survey

participants. Very important.

The government has pledged to be driven by the data. But without any

data from the evaluation, the pilot will be renewed without a second thought

because the parents who are lucky enough to receive $10-a-day care actually

like it, and it would be politically impossible to stop it. Can you imagine

the stories if $10-a-day care — what little there is — had ceased altogether

on March 31 and a couple of thousand parents were suddenly out in the cold,

denied the $10-a-day care that they’ve become used to in the past year? It

was a nightmare political scenario for the government.

In this, the government, as usual, is driven by pure politics rather

than by the data, because the data may have suggested a change to $10-a-day

care. Maybe it would have suggested $15-a-day care or some other parameter.

But no. The same thing is being redone for another year for a bunch of lucky

parents. The second year, the same pilot project will feature the same 53

centres, the same parents and the same children. They won the lottery for a

second year in a row.

I use the word lottery advisedly. Let me read to you about Lexie’s

Little Bears Child Care from a story in the Goldstream News Gazette

from Victoria on February 4 of this year. “It’s such a cliché, but it’s like

winning the lottery,” said the owner of the daycare. “The families have been

over the moon with this pilot project. Everyone wants a piece of it.” And

why wouldn’t they? That’s hardly a surprise.

As in any lottery, we hear the shouts of joy from the few parents who

win, but we don’t hear the sighs of the thousands and thousands of parents

who lost.

Well, the government gave itself ten years to institute $10-a-day

care. Two years in, how is the NDP progressing? Well, the pilot program

funds 2,500 spaces. That represents exactly 2 percent of existing child care

spaces. That’s it. Rather than coming close to a third of all child care

spaces being $10-a-day, the government has 98 percent to go. Well, let the

bells ring out and the banners fly.

The minister will argue that many more people than those in the pilot

project are paying $200 a month or less. This from a press release from

MCFD, dated November 12, where it stated that more than 20,000 families are

receiving child care for $10-a-day or less.

[2:55 p.m.]

In question period in that same month, last November, the minister

said more than 21,000. But the Globe and Mail , in an editorial on

January 12, claimed that there were 22,000 paying less than $200 a month

when the B.C. Liberals left power. In other words, the NDP may not have

moved the dial at all on that. They just slapped a different name on B.C.

Liberal programs that accomplished the same thing.

What was the cost of the pilot project? We have the benefit of a

progress report on year two of the B.C.-Canada early learning and child care

agreement that was made public with little fanfare about a month ago. From

this, we learned that $18.5 million in federal funds were spent in one year.

That’s about $600 a space. Add to that the fee reductions, child care

operating funds, affordable child care benefits, special grants to the pilot

centres called quality improvement grants to bring daycares up to the

$10-a-day standards, whatever those standards are. It’s not been evaluated

yet, but, apparently, we know what the standards are. I have no doubt that

the total is far above the average cost of a child care space in B.C., which

is $1,088.

In the end, we don’t know if $10-a-day care will be affordable, and

indeed, because universal care was annulled in the throne speech, maybe we

have found that it’s not. Maybe it will be $15-a-day or $20-a-day or more.

Quebec, after all, started with $5-a-day daycare. Now it’s up to as much as

$22 per day, per space.

In brief, we are looking at a very costly program that the province

has invested nothing in. The program has accomplished nothing in the way of

new spaces. Just 2 percent of our child care spaces are $10-a-day spaces.

It’s all politics, and it shows that the government will promise anything to

get elected. If they fall flat later on those promises, well, too bad.

“We’ll fix it after the election.”

Now I want to talk about a huge problem in child care and that is the

supply of qualified early childhood educators. This is the most pressing

problem in child care today. I hear about it all the time. I’ve received

quite a few emails on this topic. I want to quote from a few because they

tear at the heart.

Here’s one I received from the Interior. After pointing out in the

email that there are 35,000 qualified ECEs in B.C. who do not work in their

field, one provider said this:

“Daily we have panicked parents calling our office because they cannot

find child care and have recently accepted a job in our community. Many

mothers call our office, and they cannot find child care to return back to

work from their maternity leave. I think it’s just a matter of time before

we officially begin to call this situation a child care crisis, especially

when the business community begins to see the effects of employee

absenteeism and they begin to have difficulty recruiting employees to our

community for work because parents cannot secure reliable and quality child

care.”

How about another from the Interior last March? “It’s been a full year

of these contracts and additions from the NDP, and nothing has changed

regarding staffing levels. Here’s proof. The daycare that paid the highest

wage plus a $500 signing bonus is closing down, because they can’t find

staff to work at the end of April.” Wow.

How about this one from the Lower Mainland in an urban centre. I

received this just a few months ago, last November. “Hundreds of spaces are

allegedly being rolled out and funding provided to build spaces. Yet, there

is no staff to work in them!”

The industry is in crisis. Every day I am hearing of centres closing

down or desperately struggling, trying to keep their doors open because of

the lack of qualified staff. Owners and staff are working ten- to 12-hour

days for weeks and months at a time with no break, because they can’t get

staff.

“At my centre, we have increased wages by 20 percent over the past

year. We have an amazing work environment, a great staff benefits package,

including an employer-contributing RRSP program and medical, dental. Yet, we

still have a great deal of difficulty finding qualified staff. I can’t even

imagine what it must be like for smaller centres.”

The NDP virtually ignored this problem when they launched their

program in 2018. Instead, they rushed payments into the hands of parents

which created more demand, but they did virtually nothing about the

workforce needed to staff the spaces that they were funding. Their plan is

only rational when you see the political rationale to get cheques as fast as

possible into the hands of parents.

[3:00 p.m.]

In an email I received, this is what a provider said: “What has

happened is that the cart has been put before the horse. Spaces create

votes. There are more parents than workers. But spaces don’t fix the

underlying problems.” This child care provider eloquently explained the

situation. The government created spaces for political reasons, without

raising up a qualified workforce to staff them.

The government does have a bursary program to help students, but that

ran out of money in October. There were no more bursaries. They finally

found some more money about a month ago, but in the meantime, some students

had to drop out and lose their semester.

How much has the government spent on the labour supply? You’d think it

would be a lot, since it’s the biggest problem in the child care field. The

government, after all, is spending $1.3 billion over three years.

On January 17, here’s what an MCFD press release said: “To date, the

province has invested more than $13 million to provide more than 10,000

early childhood educators with a $1-per-hour wage enhancement, with another

$1-per-hour lift to come in April 2020.”

Well, whoop-de-do. The NDP is spending $1.3 billion on child care, and

1 percent of it — $13 million — goes to alleviate the biggest problem, the

dire shortage of workers. It is a failure of public policy, a triumph of

neglect and mismanagement.

Now, I want to move on to talk about the two main engines of new space

creation for this government. They’re called the new space child care fund

and the start-up fund. Last fall, the government made a big splash. The

Premier visited a child care centre, and there were all sorts of pictures

taken. It came out with a major milestone announcement, boasting that it had

created 10,400 spaces through these two programs alone. But then the

Minister of State for Child Care quietly sent out a clarification to the

press that after two years, only 2,055 of those spaces were actually open

and working. In other words, most of those spaces have one little problem.

There are no children in them, no workers staffing them. They aren’t

open.

It reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Kramer says he’s

going to build levels in his apartment, and Jerry bets that he’s not going

to do it. It turns out that Jerry is right. The conversation goes like

this.

Jerry says: “We didn’t bet on if you wanted to. We bet on if it would

be done.” Kramer says: “Well, it could be done.” And Jerry says: “Well, of

course it could be done. Anything could be done, but it’s only done if it’s

done. Show me the levels.”

To the Minister of State for Child Care, I would say it’s only done if

it’s done. Show us the child care spaces, the working child care spaces with

children and staff in them. But they aren’t there, and the minister knows

it.

Let’s add something here. I want to add something here. We’ve received

an email through freedom of information, an email to the minister’s office

about the start-up fund, which is one of the two main engines, main

programs, that grow child care spaces. This fund gives grants to previously

unlicensed people to get licensed.

The email says this: “I think we can say that there’s a fairly even

split of previously operating versus new start-up.” So only half the spaces

from the start-up fund being claimed by the government are actually new

spaces. The others aren’t new at all. Because they were operating before as

unlicensed spaces, they’re converted spaces, not created spaces.

After two years of government doling out millions of dollars, instead

of 2,055 operating spaces out of the 10,400 announced, the real number is

about 1,500. Just 14 percent of the 10,400 spaces claimed to have been

created by the government are new spaces that actually have children in

them. All of this after the government has spent $600 million on child care

over the past two years.

This is a record of failure that I think is unmatched even by the NDP

government of the 1990s. Surely the minister should win some sort of

prize.

Now, I want to talk about another program that downloads provincial

responsibilities onto municipalities. This is a trap that the province is

laying for municipalities around the province. I’m talking about a program

managed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It’s a provincial program

called the community child care space creation program. It will spend $13.7

million to create 1,370 new spaces within municipal facilities. That’s

$10,000 a space just to get them up and running. But the province will give

up to $1 million in funding to municipalities to house child care centres

within municipally owned facilities.

[3:05 p.m.]

The municipality doesn’t have to pay a dime. The province will pay the

entire shot, up to $1 million, which I would say is very, very generous. The

parameters of the program are equally generous. Funding can be used to

purchase or construct a building, buy any kind of equipment for it,

including vehicles and office equipment and furniture and play structures.

All the physical requirements of a daycare will be in place. Then the

provider in the building, which, by the way, has to be a non-profit

provider, will be, in addition, entitled to the full suite of existing

government programs.

My question is simple. Child care is a provincial responsibility. Why

wouldn’t the province do this directly instead of asking the municipalities

to do it for them? It’s because the province wants to download its

responsibility for child care onto municipalities and municipal taxpayers.

They want to push municipalities into providing social programs in addition

to the traditional things like fixing roads, providing municipal functions

like water and sewer.

Let me explain why this is downloading. It takes money to maintain a

building and the land around it. The local town would be responsible for

that. The municipal building that houses child care won’t be paying property

taxes or development cost charges because it’s a municipally owned building,

although a commercial business operating on that same property would have to

pay all of those things, which is an opportunity cost to taxpayers over the

long term.

Municipalities will have to commit to running the facility for up to

15 years. And since it will be a municipally owned centre, if something goes

wrong with it, the mayor will take the political hit — not the province. A

thousand things can go wrong with a daycare. Maybe for some reason the staff

don’t show up one day. If that happens, where will the finger of blame point

to? Mayor and council. The mayor and council.

I think it’s very crafty. It’s a very crafty scheme using $1 million

at a time to entice municipalities to commit to running those child care

centres for up to 15 years, and the minister can wash her hands of it. I

hope that municipalities will see through this.

Let’s look at a few other promises. The affordable child care benefit

was going to benefit 86,000 families at the end of three years, a year from

now. How far are we along? As of last July, which is the latest figure I

could find, there were 37,000 families receiving some level of support. The

promise is less than half achieved, but we’re two-thirds of the way through

the mandate.

The NDP promised fee reductions for 50,000 families. As of last July,

about 38,000 families were getting it. There’s still a long ways to go. And

27,000 families making under $45,000 a year would pay little or nothing for

licensed care, and the government may actually achieve this one a year from

now, although as I have mentioned, the B.C. Liberals were almost there back

in 2017 as well. The NDP have done little extra in this regard.

I want to end my speech by comparing the B.C. Liberal record to the

NDP record. I go back to government statistics in order to do that, to the

MCFD reporting portal. Anybody watching on TV or reading in Hansard

can go right to that portal online, and they will find a graph that details

space creation since 2004. It shows that over a 13-year period until 2017,

B.C. Liberals consistently — year over year, with no interruption — created

3,400 child care spaces or about 44,000 spaces in all. I call this a natural

increase. As the population increases and the economy grows, some people

want to go into child care, and they take advantage of the programs, and

they open up new businesses.

The NDP have continued this natural growth at a reduced rate slightly

and little more. With all of their spending and emphasis, they have only

accelerated that natural growth by 1,500 working spaces. That’s it. At a

massive total cost of $590 million over two years, an amazing amount of

money spent to almost no extra incremental effect.

Now, unfortunately, we know little about the government’s overall plan

for $10-a-day care. How many spaces does the minister intend to create? How

much has it all cost so far? How much will it cost when their plan is

complete? How can we know that the program is affordable if we don’t know

its parameters? The only figure we have is $1.5 billion a year, and that

figure is ten years old.

In closing, B.C. Liberals are proud of what we have accomplished. We

not only created 44,000 spaces. We created all-day free kindergarten for

five-year-olds, the early learning framework, the child subsidy program,

child care operating funds, StrongStart throughout B.C. We are very proud of

our achievements, and we will produce our own superior plan in due

course.

In the meantime, we’ll be watching closely to ask the tough questions

to demand change and improvement in NDP child care policy.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s a great pleasure to rise today and take my turn to respond to the

throne speech — not only a pleasure but a privilege — as the Member of the

Legislative Assembly for Stikine. I want to thank the people of Stikine,

which is the largest geographic constituency in the province and overlays

the traditional territories of seven First Nations. I thank them for

electing me as their representative here in the Legislature in Victoria for

three straight terms.

I’m going to start off this throne speech response by addressing what

is on the minds of many Stikine constituents, that being the relationship

between the Wet’suwet’en, the province and Canada. Specifically a few

constituents have encouraged me to make more frequent public statements

regarding Wet’suwet’en circumstances. Although I don’t take up a lot of

silent in the space I was elected to influence in the Legislature in

Victoria.

One very recent example of that is the quick response in writing from

the Premier yesterday afternoon to Simogyet Spookw, accepting the Gitxsan

Hereditary Chiefs’ offer of removing the CN Rail blockade on his traditional

territory after a commitment from the provincial and federal governments for

a senior official to meet with the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Hereditary

Chiefs. This demonstrates cooperation towards finding peaceful resolutions

before a CN injunction is enforced.

I was disappointed that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and

Minister Scott Fraser were unable to find resolution last week after great

effort regarding the Morice West Forest Service Road. I was disturbed, as

were many constituents of Stikine, by the images of Matriarchs being removed

by the RCMP from their traditional territory.

Rightly, there is separation between the judicial and political

branches in our system, and enforcement decisions are made by the RCMP, not

government. Thankfully, no one was injured during the enforcement activities

last week.

I’m also hopeful, and that is in part because of the statement from

the Wet’suwet’en Chiefs last week that read: “The Wet’suwet’en Hereditary

Chiefs remain committed to the Wiggus development process and will continue

discussions with the province of British Columbia.” A forum for these

discussions on Aboriginal rights and title through reconciliation has been

taking place since the Baht’lats in Witset last February, led for the

provincial side by former MP Murray Rankin. I’m glad that work will

continue.

As the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Lamer wrote in the 1997

Gisday’wa-Delgamuukw decision, the case and the work ahead is “the

reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the

sovereignty of the Crown.” That is what I worked on before becoming an MLA,

what I am working on here as an MLA and what I’ll continue to work on long

after I’m an MLA, as a member of my community.

Now some specifics from the throne speech that are of significance to

those living in Stikine. The action plan from the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act will be carried out and created in collaboration

with First Nations leaders in the coming months. That will entail outlining

what legislation will be analyzed jointly, first using UNDRIP as a human

rights framework.

It’s going to be a step-by-step, methodical process and a tangible

embodiment of Justice Lamer’s statement from the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case.

That would mean “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal

societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” That is important work, and as

I said — as outlined in the throne speech — that action plan will be

undertaken in the coming months.

Health services are of very great importance to those living in the

north and living in Stikine. I’m happy to say that as part of the

government’s work under this throne speech, work will be advancing on a new

Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace. That’s a hospital that’s used by many

people in Stikine. It’s the closest major hospital to many residents in

Stikine and contains most of the diagnostic and other equipment that’s

needed. A new Mills Memorial Hospital — work is advancing on that in the

next year, as outlined as some of the highlights of the throne

speech.

[3:15 p.m.]

I also want to point out the work that has been accomplished in health

services in the north — an 85 percent increase in MRIs in the Northern

Health Authority. It brings us up to the rest of the provincial standards,

pretty well. That is something that I know — and I’ve heard from

constituents — has meant a lot. The wait-lists have decreased in the north

for MRIs, and of course, it’s a diagnostic tool to get people back into

better health. That kind of work will be ongoing under the work outlined in

the throne speech, under health services.

Of course, under this year and under this throne speech, we will see

the medical services premium no longer being applied. That can mean a

savings to an individual of $900 per year and $1,800 per year per family, on

average. That’s money directly into people’s pockets that they can use in

their daily needs and in supporting small businesses in Stikine with their

spending.

Housing. There’s an amazing amount of work being done on housing on

and off reserve in Stikine. This year, under this throne speech, we’ll see

the undertaking of housing projects — for example, 26 housing units in

Witset, on reserve, and $5.2 million being expended from the provincial

budget on that housing.

We know that housing on reserve has often been just left up to the

federal government. We as a government are stepping up, and I’m very proud

of that, in acknowledging that people who have their housing needs met are

able to better take control of their own future and be members of society in

a healthy way. That’s just one aspect that’ll be undertaken this

year.

We also know that there are affordable housing initiatives in Smithers

that we’ll see work being done on, affordable seniors housing in Telkwa and,

of course, the housing for homeless people in Smithers that was already

completed last year. So more to come on the housing front for the north and

for Stikine, in particular.

Education. We’ll see, under this throne speech and under this year,

the breaking of ground of a new Walnut Park Elementary school in Smithers, a

$28.5 million project. It’ll be able to accommodate up to 440 kids. We know,

with that kind of attendance at an elementary school, that the future is

bright for the up-and-coming generation in Smithers.

Also, I’m happy to note that provincewide — but of particular interest

in Stikine, considering the demographics — the curriculum, K to 12, will now

include Indigenous culture and history. Of course, some schools and school

districts have been working on this on their own. I know that in the school

districts…. I have four school districts in the constituency I represent,

many of them taking this work on. Now we’ll see that that’ll be a

provincewide curriculum, which will help immensely.

Very importantly on the education front, we’ll see this year 24-7

mental health counselling for all post-secondary school students, a

tremendous new improvement. We have a number of students from Stikine

attending post-secondary educational institutes in Stikine, with Northwest

Community College — which is now called, I believe, the north coast college

— as well as those attending post-secondary institutions in faraway cities,

whether it’s Prince George or down in the Lower Mainland. The 24-7

counselling for those students is such a critical and important part of

what’s going to be happening, as outlined in the throne speech.

Driving. We know that ICBC was left in a mess. People do have to drive

a lot more in the north, compared to other places in B.C., especially more

urban areas. The public transportation options aren’t as diverse. People

need to drive to get to appointments, need to drive long distances,

sometimes, to get to work and need to drive to get to post-secondary and

other institutions.

[3:20 p.m.]

Generally speaking, we who are lucky enough to have vehicles in the

north do tend to put a lot more kilometres on our vehicles, compared to

other places. To see that announcement in the throne speech and the work

under this government of taking costly legal fees out of the ICBC system

will lead to an average decrease of 20 percent in basic coverage…. That

could be an average of $400 taken off people’s insurance at basic

coverage.

That is something that’s going to be very important to people living

in the north. As I said, we depend on our vehicles a lot more frequently

than others. That will be something that people will enjoy as they’re

driving to work, as their rates are decreased, and as they drive to

work.

Those working at minimum-wage jobs will be seeing, as outlined in the

throne speech, their minimum-wage increase to $15.20 by 2021, up from $14.60

now. So not only will people who can afford a car be able to get less

costly, at least, insurance, they’ll also be able to be making more at their

minimum-wage jobs.

I want to touch a little bit on the land base — the land base

including the oceans. We reached an agreement last year, at least in 2018,

on fish farms and the moving of and closing down of open-net salmon fish

farms in the Broughton Archipelago. Some people said that agreement could

never have been achieved. We managed to achieve it between First Nations,

between the government and with industry involvement.

We’ll be seeing those fish farms being moved out of those migration

routes and corridors in the Broughton Archipelago. And we will also see that

any new fish farms will require not only the federal government to approve….

And provincial government approval will be dependent on those fish farms

getting the consent of the First Nations where those fish farms will be

located. So it brings more certainty to the industry.

We know that many people depend on those fish-farming jobs in some

communities. So this agreement will bring more certainty, but it’s also

about protecting wild salmon. We know how important wild salmon is to the

economy and also the culture in places like Stikine. Again, protecting the

wild salmon economy is a priority for this government. By taking action on

fish farms, we’ll ensure that not only commercial fish-farming operations

remain viable into the future, creating that certainty, but that the wild

salmon populations will be further protected.

This is important to people in Stikine. It’s not only important for

food and social and ceremonial purposes with First Nations but important for

the ecosystem, for the biomass that returns each year and important for

people who have livelihoods depending on the sport-fishing industry. That is

something that’s extremely important on the Bulkley, the Skeena systems and

important for people who have this as a recreational outlet.

There have been a lot of restrictions on sport fishing and

restrictions on the inland commercial fishery carried out by First Nations

who have in successive years been willing to forego that activity in order

to conserve salmon species. So salmon, as I said, is a priority for this

government.

Of course, speaking of the economy and environmental and ecological

sustainability, I want to touch on forestry. It’s an important part of the

ministry I represent, an important part of the economy still in Stikine and

across the north. We are dealing with the situation that was left to us by

the previous government.

I just want to outline some of those trends. We knew — on the coast,

for instance — that between 2003 and 2017, the lumber production on the

coast decreased by 45 percent. The employment in the forest sector decreased

by 40 percent. The export of logs increased by 155 percent.

[3:25 p.m.]

Those are trajectories that communities, that workers, that people

dependent on forestry found unacceptable, and we did as well. So we’ve taken

action on that through our coast forest sector renewal process. We’ve

implemented measures to drive more logs to domestic production and increase

the amount of fibre being brought out of the forest that was previously left

behind. That’ll create more jobs. It’ll create more certainty for

communities, and it will address those negative trends over time.

We also understand and know the situation that was left to us with the

Interior forest sector. Everybody knew that there was an overcapacity in

that sector. Mills’ capacity had increased due to the availability of the

mountain pine beetle wood. That wood was predicted, long ago, to come to an

end. In fact, the previous government had a report on their hands, in 2015,

that outlined that up to 13 mills would be closing. Unfortunately, no

significant action was taken to prepare communities for that

eventuality.

So we have undertaken the Interior forest sector renewal process. We

have seen mill curtailments and closures, and it’s been extremely tough on

workers and remote rural and rural communities in the north and in the

Interior. We introduced the Interior forestry worker support program in

September — $69 million program — but we’re also soliciting and have

finished a public engagement process with over 30 communities in the

Interior and with experts in the field to come up with some policy

initiatives. We’ll be publishing a “What we heard” document shortly on that

as a next step for policy suggestions from the ground up in order to address

the overcapacity issue and the future of milling in the Interior.

We’ve addressed stumpage concerns not by political intervention in the

stumpage system but by the routine measures that we have to recalibrate

stumpage that comes year to year. The political intervention in the stumpage

system that some were advocating for would create more harm than good.

That’s been borne out by previous situations with the softwood lumber

disagreement with the States.

We can’t be seen to be politically intervening in the stumpage system,

but simply through our routine measures and adjustments around the different

factors that go into creating the stumpage, we have seen, on the coast, a 53

percent decrease in stumpage from January 2019 to this January 2020. So the

average stumpage on the coast has dropped from $18.73 a cubic metre to

$8.82. Those numbers will continue. We’ve seen a 19 percent decrease in

stumpage in the Interior.

We are aware that industry is facing some difficult challenges with

the global conditions and the market conditions. We have taken steps to make

B.C. more competitive and create some short-term and longer-term policy

initiatives for industry. We’ve introduced alternate scaling methods, which

become a more cost-effective method for removing logs for lumber and for

secondary products.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

We’ve lowered the maximum log export fee-in-lieu on new BCTS licences

from 50 percent to 35 percent, and we’ve paused further implementation of

that fee-in-lieu on other timber sales for another six months while we

collect the data from the BCTS sales to ensure that the intended objectives

are being met. We’ve modified the coast stumpage system, as I talked about,

to make it mostly lumber based. We’ve refined our fibre recovery zones and

reduced them in size by 21 percent.

Those are some of the things that…. We’re taking steps regarding the

competitive aspect of the industry.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to finish off on forestry by talking about some of the changes

that we’ve made and will be making, as outlined in this throne speech, to

reposition government as the land manager when it comes to the forestry

resource. The forests are, first and foremost, there to benefit the people

of B.C. and the communities that are nearby. We’re determined to do that

with changes we have made to the Forest and Range Practices Act and will be

further making to the Forest and Range Practices Act to increase

transparency and to, as I said, reposition government as the land manager in

a more purposeful way.

We have taken large steps with First Nations. We just signed the

Carrier-Sekani comprehensive reconciliation agreement to ensure…. It’s

mainly an economic development agreement. I want to give credit where

credit’s due. The work was started under the previous government, and we

took that initial work and made further progress with the Carrier-Sekani. As

I said, it’s mainly an economic development agreement, and it will position

the Carrier-Sekani at the table in a much better way for them to be able to

come to business-to-business deals with licence holders and to create more

plans around the forests within their communities. Again, that’s in the

north, very close to the constituency I represent.

In the constituency I represent, I have to point out the Gitanyow land

use plan that was signed under the previous government as an example of how

we need to move forward with First Nations in creating these kinds of land

use plans. The Gitanyow Hereditary Chief Malii has pointed out that a

rigorous, well-thought-out partnership around a land use plan really is the

essence of free, prior and informed consent. If you have a First Nation and

the province coming together and deciding on what activities should occur

where on the land base, then that presents certainty for licensed activities

by the province in conjunction with the First Nation.

So looking forward to more land use planning work in the coming year

under the throne speech and as addressed in the throne speech. Again, that

was part of our government’s mandate back when we became government in July

of 2017: to undertake a three-year land use planning process. That work will

continue more rigorously in this upcoming year as outlined in the throne

speech.

Those are some of the highlights from the throne speech that will

really make a difference for people in Stikine around affordability, around

services and around a sustainable economy. Our government is making

different choices, choices that put people first, especially, as I said, in

the area that I’m responsible for, in forestry — putting people first in

repositioning the government as the land manager, and that forests, first

and foremost, should support people and communities ahead of everything

else.

We’ve come a long way in 2½ years, but our job isn’t done. We’ll

continue to make life more affordable, deliver better services that people

can count on and build a strong, sustainable economy for everyone. I look

forward to this work and continuing to serve the people of this province.

It’s an honour to be able to take my place in responding to the throne

speech today. I look so much forward to the work ahead this session and in

the coming years.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the member for Langley East.

R. Coleman: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to the chair.

I’d like to start out…. You never know when you might want leave

during a session. Complimenting the MLA for Vernon-Monashee and his staff

member, Kevin, who are doing an unbelievably good job in the Whip’s office….

You never know when you might need leave, right?

[3:35 p.m.]

Throne speeches have different moments and twists to them. At the

beginning of every throne speech over the last 24 years — there have been

more than 24 throne speeches that I’ve sat through — we recognize British

Columbians we lost in the last year. In my particular community, it’s been a

tough year. It’s been a tough year in my political family, not the political

family from a riding association perspective but actually from the position

of families who have served in public life.

Recently we had the celebration of life for Debbie Froese. Debbie

Froese was the wife of my mayor, Jack Froese. Debbie was one of those people

that brought joy and light into a room whenever Jack and Debbie attended an

event or sat down and talked to you because she was just one of those

wonderful people who care a lot. Losing her to cancer was a great loss to

the Froese family but also to my community.

Last year in January, February, my Member of Parliament, Mark Warawa,

who had served when he was the MP for 15 years, announced he was going to

retire. Within 60 days, Mark was sick, and Mark died. We thought, at Easter

of last year when they said they thought they had isolated it and he was

going to be fine, that we had a miracle on our hands. By June, July, we lost

Mark. Mark — and his family, who are now today rebuilding their life without

him — was a wonderful father and a grandfather and a phenomenal

husband.

Last summer a friend of mine who I actually was involved in running a

campaign for, back for council, a guy named Dean Drysdale, passed away with

ALS. Dean had run for the federal election, the previous one to this one,

for the Conservative Party of Canada. That was three in just a short period

of time, and there are others.

On the flip side of all of these people going way before their time, a

couple weeks ago a friend of mine, Dorscie Paterson, celebrated her 107th

birthday. And Dorscie is still with it. Now, she does have one request. The

request would be of the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Health —

because the funding was put in place when I was a Minister of Housing — to

get whatever block is in the way of building the freestanding hospice on the

land that’s already owned by the hospice and get on with constructing

it.

Because Dorscie has bought a new pair of boots. She’s got that pair of

boots so that she can actually go to the sod-turning and push it down into

the dirt and break the ground on the hospice. Why is it important to

Dorscie? Because Dorscie was on the first board and served on the foundation

of the hospice society for over 40 years. She was on the first board of the

hospice founding board over 50 years ago. So let’s remember that we’ve got

to get that sod-turning done for Dorscie.

Now, I’ve been here 24 years. On Tuesday of this week was the first

time in that 24-year period, no matter what the protests were on the

premises, no matter what activities were on these premises, that somebody

tried to deny me access, as an elected member of this Legislature, to this

building. It was shameful. Somebody didn’t do their job. Somebody knew that

that was on the front steps. Somebody knew that this could happen, and

somebody needed to have the injunctive work done so that somebody could be

able to handle it on behalf of us with police and security of this building.

I don’t want to point any fingers. I’m just saying that somebody should have

been ready.

As I sat in my office in the afternoon on Tuesday, I watched one of

the most shameful things I’ve watched in a long time. These folks that are

in this chamber with us today in their blue blazers and their grey slacks,

the folks that are upstairs, the folks that are out in the hallways that

actually secure and serve us here every day, left work. They walked down the

sidewalk outside my office being taunted and sworn at and yelled at and

drummed on because they showed up for work that day. They’d done nothing to

anybody out there.

[3:40 p.m.]

For me, personally, although I did post this, I want to tell you how

much we value you, how much we appreciate the job you do, and how important

you are to the success of democracy in this province. What happened for you

on that day was shameful, and I personally apologize to you for

it.

Now, let’s talk about the protests for a second. I’ve read the stories

of people asking young people why they were out there and what they were

protesting, and they didn’t seem to actually know what they were here for.

But I can tell you this: the professional organizers that were out there had

it together. They had maps of the building. They had pictures of the MLAs so

they could point it out to the protesters when one of us would either enter

or exit the building. They knew where all the exits were, and they were

prepared to move their people around.

The thing they don’t know, or don’t want to know, is that there are 20

First Nations, I believe, along that pipeline route. All of them — all of

them — have signed onto benefit agreements. They’ve signed onto training.

Young people in their communities are being trained today for jobs and for

the future, to lift them out of poverty, to have a future for their

communities and for themselves and their families.

In the whole issue in and around this, when you hear on the national

news, “We’re here for the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs,” you’re not there

for all of them, because there are a number of them that actually support

the project as well. To think you should go and blockade a railway and take

out thousands of jobs in eastern Canada on the back of something you know

nothing about and not understanding that the folks support that pipeline and

the jobs and the future opportunities out there….

I know this because I negotiated a lot of those benefit agreements.

I’ve looked at the people. I’ve met them eye to eye in those communities and

seen the hope and love that they have for their community but also seeing

what they see as a vision for their communities in the north. When you see

that, you know how important it is.

Sometimes people don’t understand the perspective relative to First

Nations. If you haven’t been to a little Indian village 25 miles out of the

sight of a community on a gravel road that has no store, that has no access

other than a gravel road, and seen what they want to lift themselves up for

by having opportunities in their region of the province, you have no right

to attack them, to insult them or to think that you can speak for them.

They’re quite capable of speaking for themselves.

They’re also quite capable, as I found, in negotiating for themselves

because they’re not an easy bargain. They are informed. They know what they

want, and they now want for the future.

As the next protester goes out, I’d like them to think about some

little things about First Nations. Little things. For instance, if you want

to get a driver’s licence in this province, you need to have picture ID. You

also have to know whether you need to have corrective lenses, whether you’ve

had an eye test, in order to get a driver’s licence.

Do you know that in Haida Gwaii, an optometrist goes, I am told, twice

a year, and there’s a long waiting list? Do you know that in northern B.C.,

there are no driving schools? Do you know that for somebody who’s 25 miles

out of a community and who wants to be able to go in and get a driver’s

licence, they first need to get an eye test, which isn’t available to them?

They need to have ID, which is hard to get when you live 25 miles outside of

a community where there are any services. And do you know there’s nowhere to

learn to drive?

Imagine that. We take it for granted. I looked today. There’s a

licencing place for driver’s licences not very far from here. We could walk

there in probably less than ten minutes. Some of these guys have to take a

water taxi or get a ride into town, like you would have to from Lax

Kw’alaams village, up north of Prince Rupert, simply because there’s a road

to Tuck Inlet but then you have to get on a ferry to get to Prince Rupert.

If you can’t make your connections, you can’t get home that

night.

[3:45 p.m.]

I sat down with a lady yesterday who has actually started a program in

northern B.C. She’s managed, so far, to get over 200 people their driver’s

licences. Remarkable. Her name is Lucy Sager.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: The member across says she did run for the leadership of my party, but

this is not a partisan project for her at all. After she decided to move on

to where she is, she found a passion. The passion is to help those people in

her area of B.C. that are less fortunate.

So what are we going to do? Is there a way to get an app that we could

actually give somebody an eye test electronically without having to go

through it? I saw something recently where, in England, you can now get an

ultrasound with a little instrument attached to an iPhone. Surely to

goodness we can find a way for people to get their eye tests, their ID and

some training to get a driver’s licence.

Did you know the next step that comes from that? The ability to go to

work or go to training so you can get those jobs that are going to come from

economic development and actually have an opportunity for you to change your

life.

An interesting story I was told. There was a teacher — I think it was

in Smithers, actually; the member might know — who actually took her entire

class to get their eyes tested to make sure they could see the blackboard or

read what they’re reading but also to get eye tests. We need more of that

retail approach to people in places in remote areas of British Columbia so

they can get to where they need to be relative to their futures. Sometimes

it’s the simplest of things we could do to change a life.

Those folks that are out there standing on some rail line or blocking

the Lions Gate Bridge today who live and have a place to go home tonight

maybe want to think about those folks that need that pipeline project and

the jobs and the economic opportunities so that they can change their

lives.

Quit deciding that you think you can speak for them. You cannot. Let

the process go through properly and quit getting people that are

professional agitators to go out and pretend that they care about those

folks when they have no idea of their living standards, their employment

opportunities, their economic development opportunities and what they need

in order to, frankly, change their lives.

I’m sorry, to the member from Smithers. It was actually Hazelton where

it was a teacher that did this.

The budget also spoke about policing — not for much, but it said it

was going to invest in rural policing. Now, when we see the budget, we’ll

see the number, but I’m hearing it’s about $4.5 million. Let me talk to you

about policing in British Columbia from a number of perspectives.

First of all, when I became the Solicitor General in 2001, I found out

that the RCMP in British Columbia’s balance was being budgeted by vacancies.

There were over 100 police officers short in rural British Columbia at that

time under the previous NDP government. Not only did we put the money in for

that, but we raised the complement by another 100 officers the next

year.

Today in British Columbia, after 2½ years of the NDP, there are 200

vacancies in rural policing in British Columbia. So rather than think you’re

going to go into the budget and throw $4 million to $5 million at that, why

don’t you fund the police officers that are needed today? There are police

officers out there today who don’t have the backup in rural B.C. or the

assistance on other services because you’re not funding the police

force.

You need to fund the RCMP for the positions that you say are already

in the contract and in the complement in British Columbia’s rural areas.

When you do that, then talk about what you’ll do to enhance rural policing.

The challenge….

Policing is going to go through some interesting shifts in the next

year or so, and we’ll find out what that is in the next little while. We are

awaiting…. I would imagine the Solicitor General and certainly the director

of police services may have or are awaiting the report from former judge

Wally Oppal, who is making an assessment of, basically, the idea for rural

policing, or actually city police change in the city of Surrey.

[3:50 p.m.]

Before I jump to there, because I’m going to touch on policing, I want

to also mention a story on the side of driver’s licences for First Nations

communities. Changes have been made that say you have to have insurance and

licensing now for off-road vehicles. When we made that decision, it was

right to, actually, really take control on the theft of off-road vehicles,

etc.

Folks driving an off-road vehicle can get a ticket and get points,

even if they don’t have a driver’s licence. I recently found out that a

number of First Nations individuals who are actually trying to qualify for

their driver’s licence…. When they went to get it, they found out they had

fines from off-road vehicles on their territories for driving a quad or a

snowmobile.

Mainly, it’s conservation officers that ticket them, and they have a

fine they have to pay before they can get their driver’s licence. It’s

something I would recommend to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations to take

a hard look at and find out how we can get through that kind of silliness

for the reason for these same people.

It’s a bit of education, probably, for our rural policing and also for

our conservation officers, relative to where they can drive an ORV. On their

land, on territorial lands — where is it allowed? Right now, there seems to

be some confusion out there.

We all know that the city of Surrey unanimously decided, as a council,

that they wanted to change their police force about a year and a half ago.

We now know that the government has done the right thing here, saying:

“We’ll go out to an independent person, ask for an analysis,

recommendations, on how to transition that police force and make sure of

that expertise on things as we go forward.”

Now, I’m not going to give you an opinion of that piece today, but I

do think we need to recognize that policing is integrated and needs to be

integrated all the time. We are today, still, if you can imagine, the only

jurisdiction on the North American continent — I’ll say that again: the only

jurisdiction on the North American continent — where every police officer,

police car and technology is on the same platform in real time. It’s called

PRIME.

As we go forward with whatever changes take place in policing,

remember this. Technology, integration and the integration of information

and work will be the key to modern policing for decades to come. It doesn’t

matter what the uniform is of the officer on the street as long as the

information management and the response is integrated. There are no gaps for

anything to fall through. If we do that, and we continue with what we’re

doing with integrated teams, integrated homicide teams, with a high solve

rate — because you have your expertise, and you build it for all police

forces together — you’ll be successful.

But I think as we come through this discussion, the important thing is

to also understand something else. Technology can be an asset to law

enforcement. In areas of the world today, an officer gets out of his car,

and he has what they call a camera, right? They have a body cam. Most people

think that is for protection of them and the decisions they make, which it

is. But in some jurisdictions, they’ve gone further, and they now use

artificial intelligence.

Now an officer can get out at the scene and start talking about what

they see — if it’s a car accident, where the two cars are, what the injuries

are, all of those things. Talk to witnesses, and everything is being

recorded on the camera. But the AI is also typing up the statements and

observations of the officer and the witnesses at the crime scene, which

removes a huge amount of administration for police officers. They can be

more efficient. It also makes for stronger evidence, because it’s real-time

observation by the people and the witnesses.

We need to make sure as we go through this, however they go after the

report…. Recognize that this may be a great opportunity for British

Columbia. I think that’s important. I’m not afraid of it either way. I think

that sometimes you have to change to innovate. The people of Surrey will get

to make that decision, not us. The Solicitor General will take the report

from Mr. Oppal and make the decision.

[3:55 p.m.]

The throne speech didn’t spend a lot of time on resources, but I want

to spend a couple of minutes on a couple of things. First, I want to talk

about forestry just briefly.

I negotiated, in 2005, the last softwood lumber agreement we had in

British Columbia and in Canada. I was with David Emerson and, at that time,

Michael Wilson, who was our ambassador in New York. To all the ministers

across the country who I went to, I said: “Look, let us lead this file,

because we’ve got the biggest stake in forestry.” They did, and we were

successful.

I just want to say this. If ministers and Premiers are going to

Washington to talk about softwood, our ministers should be there. We should

be there because we’re the big dog in this fight. They need to know what we

want and where we want to go, because, quite frankly, British Columbia is

the largest forest jurisdiction in this country. I think that they make a

mistake by not making sure that they’re cooperating with the minister and

with the Premier of B.C. when they go to do this.

Secondly, when I was up in Skeena, I had the Skeena Forest Products

guys tell me that the changes in the coast forests, where we’ve raised the

amount of log exports on the coast, the central and southern coast, is

actually killing their mill. Now, I know we got accused of allowing log

exports, but you increased them, increased them on the coast, and you

brought them further south. Now it’s affecting those maybe few mills that

might survive. Take a second look at that. I think it’s

important.

Don’t waterbed your stumpage like you are in some areas of B.C. right

now, where the cost of stumpage is going out, making it completely

uncompetitive for a mill to come back on line. Think about that.

Also think about this. We’ve got too many taxes in this province. I

know I’ll get a chance during the budget speech to talk about this in more

detail, but I got to tell you. If Alberta goes to an 8 percent corporate tax

and we’re still at a 12 percent corporate tax, watch companies flee their

offices to Alberta and still be in business in B.C., because that’s a huge

gap in the taxes.

Think about the small business. I know I oftentimes hear, even during

question period, what you’ve done for small business. But I can tell you

what you’ve done for two small businesses in my community. You put them on

the ropes. One of them employs 25 people. The employer health tax this year

will cost that business $30,000. You add that in to the 6 percent increase

that they put on the property taxes in that particular community, which

flows through the triple-net budget directly to the business, and all the

other taxes that have increased, including carbon tax and all of those. You

bring them to their knees. You bring them to the point where break-even is

tough.

You know what it